The purpose of this study aims to investigate why the vibrant public debate on citizen's income in 1998 did not translate into parliamentary discussion in Sweden, highlighting the need for a historian's perspective to reveal the historical factors influencing our welfare system, especially in the context of universal basic income, a globally significant topic with relevance in Sweden.

The main question addressed in this study is as follows: How is citizen’s income presented in the public debate in the year 1998?

To approach the layers behind the debate, this study borrows a theory from political science developed by Per Janson. The theory is primarily designed to study policy within the parliament regarding the subject of citizen’s income, aiming to uncover the layers of meaning behind the actions supporting or opposing the idea. This study will adapt the theory to analyze a public debate in the daily press during the year of 1998.

The reason for choosing the year of 1998 is the abundance of material available, which exceeds that of any other year in the 1990s. There are 91 different articles. To be able to choose the articles that would provide a representative picture of the public debate in 1998, a method called idea- and ideology analysis is used. Additionally, due to the scope of this study, a limitation on the number of articles has been applied, reducing the number to 12.

The method employed to structure the research is argumentation analysis. Using this method, two categories have been established to analyze the articles. The first category gathers articles that support the concept of citizen’s income, examining their similarities and differences. The second category compiles articles that oppose the idea, exploring their similarities and differences.

The new knowledge this research has produced is that it focuses on the public debate, showcasing the different ways citizens reactions to the idea of citizen’s income. It’s a contentious debate. There are forces that have decided to use their political power to try to shut the debate down. There are other groups that tend to use the idea of citizen’s income to talk about their views that have nothing to do with the subject. The debate hasn’t matured enough to be able to discuss this complicated and versatile subject which is why it isn’t being discussed at the parliament as a serious political subject.